TEc "The beef in Buenos Aires" - The UK-Argentina dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas

I'm afraid this will be only another twist in the long-running dispute between the UK and Argentina on sovereignty over the Isles Malouines, Islas Malvinas, Falkland Islands.
The latest round of diplomatic disagreement is condemned to blow over after a spate of high-charged rhetoric not adding to or detracting from the core issue.
The islands changed names are themselves testimony to the rivalries of European nations in the heydays of overseas expansion, empire-building or claims to newly-found territories, inhabited or not.
The underlying historical fact witnessed across the world is that Portugal and Spain preceded France, the Netherlands and the UK by 100-200 years.
The French, Dutch and British initiated themselves to become sea-faring nations as pirates coveting 'possessions' of the former two.This led to increased clashes, wars, temporary or permanent occupation of territory previously held by Portugal and Spain.

As the Spanish empire declined with most of its Central and South American colonies attaining independence through the 19th century, Great Britain achieved the peak of its power.
Loss of the 13 American colonies in 1776 did not undermine confidence that Britannia with its vast flotilla of ships effectively ruled the waves.

That was the setting for the British takeover of Islas Malvinas in 1833, a time when Argentina had already emerged as an independent country inheriting previously Spanish ruled mainland provinces as well as the thinly inhabited or uninhabited islands of the South Atlantic.
The Argentinean Constitution maintains Islas Malvinas to be part of the country.

As The Economist rightly puts it there are any number of anomalies in the world's political/administrative order today.These were mostly produced by a past history of conquest, conflict or acquisition.

Quick solidarity displayed by the Latin American bloc also underscores the Continent's common European origins proudly shaken off when not rejected at independence.
This is why too the Falklands are sometimes referred as a colonial question when at best it relates to a legacy from Britain's empire that outlasted Spain's.

In this particular case can geography or a relatively lightly-seated historical claim be a binding argument in the dispute?

Also, the minimal size of the human settlement makes it unfeasible for the Falklanders to go it alone ever.
They will always show a number of dependences, defence not least.
The islands destiny seems tied to the UK for the foreseeable future.

If oil is struck the UK will have yet another powerful argument not to relinquish its grip over this "far-flung relic" of the once mighty British Empire.
The recent brief war that claimed nearly 905 lives on both sides is a reminder that to Argentina this remains an open question.
Despite dropping the use of military force the Argentinean Constitution and nation have not dropped the issue.

PS
1982 was indeed a closer-run conflict strictly militarily speaking.
The Royal Navy cannot forget the sinking of HMS Sheffield or HMS Coventry and other battle ships sunk or damaged.
Particularly hard - it could have signalled a turning point and a different outcome to the war - was the loss of the container-ship Atlantic Conveyor laden with much-needed military hardware.
Those Exocet-carrying Super Etendard, Dagger and Skyhawk pilots of Argentina's Air Force delivered very painful punches to the British task-force.
American spy-satellites and the French embargo on those feared missiles proved vital help.